Talk:Young–Laplace equation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Young–Laplace equation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Chemistry High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Axisymmetric equations

Can anyone get some references for this section or expand on how the equations are derived? Possibly a reference to a textbook where these equations are derived. Following the links in the paragraph its very unclear how one goes about deriving them and hence unclear to me at least how one would go about solving them.

Arkore 12:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followed up or independently discovered?

Other web sites I have come across like http://www.bartleby.com/65/yo/Young-Th.html state that the formula was "independently set forth by Laplace in 1805" not "followed up" as stated in the History section of this article. The external link to the 1911 encyclopedia is not real clear but seems to indicate that Laplace came at it from a different approach. Can anybody clear this up, because I was thining of expanding on the Thomas Young article.

Harold14370 08:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on Laplace at the moment and will try to clear this up. Need to learn about capillary action first though!Cutler 10:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This text contradicts itself! The law can be re-written as pressure difference*tension=Radius. So there is a PROPORTIONALITY relation between radius and tension. On the bottom of the text it is said that "Law of Laplace states that there is an inverse relationship between surface tension and alveolar radius".. so an INVERSE relationship!!! I have noticed this mistake in other medicine texts (not in all though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.224.192 (talk) 21:03, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

"The law can be re-written as pressure difference*tension=Radius"

No it can't. Examine the units. — Ben pcc

It stinks

This article. Stinks.

The math is very low quality. I understand that this eqn has some kind of use in medicine, but seriously, you can't substitute cheap math because pharmacolodoctorwhateverists don't understand concoctions of higher purity. Ever see a 30 year old guy ride a bike with training wheels?

And there is redundancy. For example, "capillary action in general". Better yet, the part beginning with "In order to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, the induced capillary pressure..." has almost nothing to do with the Young-Laplace eqn, it must be moved to another article.

Well, correction, it is tied to YL eqn, but that would require solving a very complicated boundary value problem, followed by energy minimzation. The equation showed there is derived by balancing (static) forces at the contact line.

I was editing this article and stopped dead in my tracks when I saw that... I did some things but more work is needed. — Ben pcc 05:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is good you at least fixed the introduction. --Berland 09:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree w.r.t the application to alveolar function - it is very misleading. The statement about surfactant: "its effect is greater on small alveoli than on large alveoli" is without foundation, but that is the crux of the issue. I'll edit soon. Verytas (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aneurysms

Article said : "For example, if an aneurysm forms in a blood vessel wall, the radius of the vessel has increased." This is not general. It could only be true for progressive expansion of the wall (as with fusiform aneurysms). It would not be true, for example, if the aneurysm was initiated as a small blister, whose radius could be much smaller than that of the parent artery. —DIV (137.111.13.36 (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Double Bubble

Remember when you were a kid and got a bottle of soap suds for blowing bubbles from the supermarket? Remember when, as you blew those bubbles, sometimes two bubbles would stick together making a double bubble? But the bubbles would eventually become one bubble before it popped. Why? Well. As Laplace law states - PRESSURE IS INVERSELY RELATED TO RADIUS. One of the bubbles were always smaller than the other. Small bubble = less radius = more pressure. Larger bubble = larger radius = less pressure. Air would leave the smaller bubble (area of higher pressure) to go into the larger bubble (area of lower pressure). Eventually, they would become one bubble. Double Bubble :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikix27 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose the page Laplace formula redirects and be merged into Young–Laplace equation as the latter has more content about the same formula. — Superuser27 ^{contributions - talk} 13:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should simply ~~delete~~ redirect Laplace formula to YL equation, does Laplace article add something else? --MaoGo (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I erased Laplace formula and redirected it to the current article. --MaoGo (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laplace Pressure

I added a fact about Laplace pressure in emulsions, but maybe I'm in the wrong place. I don't understand the difference between this article and Laplace pressure. Maybe they should be merged? CyreJ (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]